Goodluck Jonathan's government on women
can be summarised thus: Thirty-three-one-
thirds. This figure reflects the size of the
national cake that should compulsorily be
handed to women. It is reflected in the
composition of Jonathan's cabinet and that's
one of the few campaign promises he can
boast he fulfilled.
There is Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in the Ministry
of finance; Diezani-Alison-Madueke in the
petroleum ministry; and there was Stella
Oduah in the Aviation Ministry. These are key
positions that have been historically held by
men while women have largely functioned in
unthreatening spaces such as "Women
Affairs."
I am however far less fixated on what
share of the cake women get. I am more
concerned about whose hands hold the
knife that does the cutting...
Some recent examples of Jonathan's
magnanimity towards women: Out of the
Federal Government's 20 slots to the ongoing
national confab, it was specifically stated that
six must go to women. Lately, after the
Nigeria Immigration Service job test and
stampede, Jonathan launched a lose-a-family-
member-collect-three-jobs-bonanza. In the
directive that accompanied the offer, it was
again stated that of the three family members
of the deceased to be employed, at least one
must be a woman.
These are significant steps and yes, we should
give credit when it is due: Jonathan has
largely been consistent in his pursuit of
stamping female face on the bodies that
stomp through the Nigerian corridors of
power.
But, does this mean that Jonathan loves
women? Do his efforts make him a feminist?
A quick definition for those who equate
feminism with misandry and imagine feminists
as testicle-crunching ideologues: a feminist is
anyone – male or female – who believes in,
and actively works towards a society where
men and women are treated equally.
So, is Jonathan a feminist or just a benevolent
patriarch? And the driving motivation of his
thirty-three-one-thirdspolicy? Tokenism? To
what end? Getting the so-called women's
vote? Or, is this, for Jonathan, a deep
conviction that biology is not destiny and
nobody's options in life should ever be
limited simply because of their body parts?
Recently, I saw an advertorial in the
newspaper pitting Jonathan's "gender
achievements" against those of the rival All
Progressives Congress. The rant gleefully
celebrates the appointment of women into
"juicy" offices by Jonathan but it ultimately
shortchanges itself. This women-propaganda
team does not seem to have reflected well
enough that it is buying into a liberalism
project that only disguises –not demolishes –
the workings of patriarchal power. If this line
of thinking is not challenged, it can easily
become a pattern that will be replicated all
over Nigeria by government aides who always
want easy answers.
The Nigerian society, if they must know, is
largely homosocial. Men occupy the power
positions and from where they dispense small
favours to women. That is why political
parties have the position of "Woman Leader,"
a subtle suggestion that women will not be
allowed to lead men. Men occupy all the
frontline positions but created such a
category for women to manage "women
issues" without disrupting the mechanism that
reproduces privileges their maleness confers
on them. On the Peoples Democratic Party
website, it's unsurprising that the only woman
in the National Working Committee is Kema
Chikwe, "the Woman Leader."
The question to never lose sight of is: How
far can the thirty-three-one-third-policy go to
strike at the roots of gender inequality –and
all its consequences – in Nigeria?
Any "women-agenda" by any administration
that does not reach the woman on the street,
by giving her charge of her own life through
quality education, adequate health care,
financial independence, protection under the
law from sexual and spousal abuse,
reproductive justice, and give her equal
opportunities for self-fulfilment, is merely
superficial.
It amounts to treating the symptoms rather
than a systematic engagement with the
various sites where inequality is produced in
our society.
Last year, the Minister of Women Affairs and
Social Development, Hajiya Zainab Maina, was
quoted as saying that 70 per cent of Nigerian
rural women live below poverty line. That is a
woman-agenda that should be activated. The
President would be more feminist if he speaks
to the cause of women in emergency
situations in Nigeria. They are often victims of
sexual/ gender-based violence, and
rehabilitation efforts should be specifically
targeted at them for this reason.
It is important to note that efforts at
upstaging inequality in our culture are not
solely the job of the President; He should
coopt everybody. Yet, we cannot ignore that
by virtue of his office, the president's ethos
can lend a sense of urgency to these issues if
he addresses them.
Take, for instance, President Barack Obama's
stance on women issues. He has not only
employed women to key positions in his
government, he also canvasses equal pay for
them. He relentlessly critiques the system
that does not make enough room for women
who balance career with motherhood. He
takes a defined stance on reproductive rights
and health care for women. Or, a former
Burkina Faso president, Thomas Sankara,
whose campaign for women empowerment
was phenomenal. Sankara recognised that no
liberation project any country embarks upon
can succeed if the women are not central to
such efforts.
While Jonathan's administration has
undeniably done something for women,
enough to inspire other women, I insist that
the dream of feminists is not for a few
women to be admitted into the elite men's
club. Rather, it is for women to have access
to as much opportunities, resources and
power as men. It begins with challenging
social practices called "culture" (both social
and religious) under which Nigerian men tuck
their chauvinism. It goes beyond mobilising
women to act as circus monkeys in the
Nigerian political theatre and be paid peanuts
thereafter.
The other day, Nigeria's First Lady, Patience
Jonathan, had a "women's event" in Abuja. The
media reported that this jamboree of
"Celebrating Nigerian Women for Peace and
Empowerment" practically paralysed other
activities in the Federal Capital Territory but
at the end, the women received cooking
utensils and cash gifts. Where lies the
empowerment in that? What good is done for
women when you exploit them that way?
Gender inequality/patriarchy, of course,
precedes Jonathan and will definitely take
years of education and activism to dissemble.
But the Jonathan approach, I am afraid, does
little against the roots, the culture and the
continuous (re)circulation of inequality.
BY ABIMBOLA ADELAKUN
No comments:
Post a Comment